Browse through brief employment and labor law updates from around the globe. Contact a Littler attorney for more information or view our global locations.

View all Q1 2022 Global Guide Quarterly updates   Download full Q1 2022 Global Guide Quarterly

Victoria Introduces Sick Pay Guarantee for Casual Employees

New Legislation Enacted

Author: Naomi Seddon, Shareholder – Littler

The Victorian Government has launched the Victorian Sick Pay Guarantee, a pilot scheme which allows certain casual employees and self-employed workers to claim up to 38 hours of paid sick or carer’s leave each year. Employees must meet certain criteria to be eligible for the sick pay guarantee. Claims must be submitted within 60 days of the worker’s absence and must be for a minimum of three hours for any day. The maximum amount a worker can claim in any 12-month period is 38 hours. Each claim is paid at the national minimum wage.

Although applications under the sick pay guarantee do not require the involvement of employers, employers are required to provide employees with evidence of employment upon request. Employers may also be contacted by the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions to verify a worker’s claim. The sick pay guarantee will be taxpayer funded during its trial phase. However, the Victorian Government has stated that any ongoing scheme will be funded by an industry levy.

Denying Employee Remote Work Arrangement Requests

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Naomi Seddon, Shareholder – Littler

In a recent Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decision, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has confirmed that employers may decline requests for remote working arrangements where there are practical and operational reasons which make them unviable. While the decision involved a public sector employer, the principles considered by the Commission in this case are similar to those that apply in respect to employee requests for flexible work arrangements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The Commission in this case found that it was not unreasonable “for an employer to determine the operational requirements for delivery of key accountabilities” and that the working preferences of an employee needed to be balanced with the “operational requirements of the employer.” Nonetheless, private sector employers must ensure that they comply with the Fair Work Act when considering flexible work requests and only deny such requests on reasonable business grounds.

Whether Mandating Vaccination Evidence Contravenes the Privacy Act

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Naomi Seddon, Shareholder – Littler

In an important decision for employers in Australia, the Fair Work Commission confirmed on January 21, 2022 that an employer’s mandatory vaccination policy, which required employees to provide evidence of vaccination status, was a lawful and reasonable direction and did not contravene the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The employer required employees to provide either the Government-issued COVID-19 digital certificate or an immunization history statement.

The Commission held that the collection of this evidence was reasonably necessary in accordance with the Privacy Act. However, it is important to note that employers must comply with the Privacy Act in the collection of such information from their employees and in situations where the vaccination is optional or employees are able to work from home as opposed to coming to an office, an alternative approach such as a health declaration may be more appropriate without collecting employee vaccination records.

Commission Upholds Dismissal for Out-of-Hours Social Media Post

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Naomi Seddon, Shareholder – Littler

On February 15, 2022, the Fair Work Commission upheld the dismissal of an employee who made offensive and discriminatory posts on a social media platform out of work hours. Deputy President Masson found that the posts were likely to cause serious damage to the relationship between the employer and the employee and that the conduct was incompatible with the employee’s employment duties and breached employer policies.

Importantly, despite finding that there had been some issues regarding the procedural fairness as part of the dismissal process, the Commission nonetheless held that the dismissal had not been unfair, dismissing the application. The case follows a number of similar decisions confirming that employee out of hours conduct can constitute valid grounds for dismissal if the conduct may damage the employer's reputation.

Personal Use of Company Car Can be Used to Meet High-Income Threshold

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Naomi Seddon, Shareholder – Littler

On February 18, 2022, the Fair Work Commission held that a manager’s personal use of a business car could tip her annual earnings over the high-income threshold and therefore render her ineligible to file an unfair dismissal claim. Commissioner Spencer applied the Fewings formula, finding that the vehicle costs together with the employee’s annual salary, health insurance, and mobile phone meant her salary was over the high-income threshold of $153,600. As such, the employee’s application was dismissed. The decision is an important reminder that certain employment benefits can be included in the calculation to determine whether an employee falls outside of the unfair dismissal jurisdiction.